Conference 7.286::sports_90

    Interesting information.   You can almost "see" some of the games being
    played just from reading the lineups.
    
    One thing to keep in mind when discussing the old Philadelphia A's. 
    Connie Mack, the owner-manager-demigod of the A's, was a brilliant
    field general and had a keen eye for talent.   But he absolutely
    loathed paying for it.
    
    Mack basically had two different powerhouse teams.  His first great
    team was from around 1905 to 1915.   Players like Eddie Collins, Nap
    Lajoie, Rube Waddell, Eddie Plank, Chief Bender, Frank "Home Run"
    Baker, and more.   Then he broke them up and sold them all away when
    they started to cost too much.
    
    Then in the late 1920s and early 1930s, he built another team.  Jimmy
    Foxx, Jimmy Dykes, Lefty Grove, George Earnshaw, Howard Ehmeke, Mickey
    Cochrane, ...   They won three straight pennants (1929,1930,1931) and
    two Series (1929,1930) during the heart of the Ruth-Gehrig years in New
    York.  Then he broke them up and sold them all away.  Foxx to the
    Bosox, Cochrane to the Tigers, and so on ...
    
    Shame ...  What could have been ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    I mentioned in .0 that I did not include pitchers. Well, in order
    to fill this out, I figured I should delve back into the records
    and extract the top winners from each team.
    
    Yankees:  Red Ruffing, Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt, Lefty Gomez, Johnny
    	      Allen, Jumbo Brown, Johnny Broaca, Monte Pearson, Johnny
    	      Murphy, Spud Chandler, Atley Donald.
    
    Athletics:Lefty Grove (early 30's), Rube Wahlberg, Howard Ehmke,
    	      Roy Mahaffey, Sugar Cain, Johnny Marcum, Harry Kelly,
    	      Lynn Nelson.
    
    Red Sox:  Lefty Grove (late 30's), Wes Ferrell, Johnny Welch, Bob
    	      Kline, Danny MacFayden, Jack Wilson, Jim Bagby, Fritz
    	      Ostermueller, Joe Heving.
    
    Senators: Sad Sam Jones, General Crowder, Earl Whitehill, Jimmie
    	      DeShong, Dutch Leonard, Joe Krakauskas.
    
    Indians:  Wes Ferrell, Denny Galehouse, Mel Harder, Willis Hudlin,
    	      Bob Feller, Al Milnar.
    
    Browns:   Bump Hadley, BoBo Newsome, Lefty Stewart, Ivy Andrews,
    	      Chief Hogsett, Jim Walkup.
    
    Tigers:   Whit Wyatt, Rip Sewell, Tommy Bridges, Schoolboy Rowe,
    	      Firpo Marberry, Eldon Auker,Roxie Lawson, George Gill,
    	      Dizzy Trout.
    
    White Sox:Ted Lyons, George Earnshaw, John Whitehead, Vern Kennedy,
    	      Monte Stratton, Thornton Lee, Johnny Rigney.
    
    
    Now, was the competition really that tough for the Yankees in the
    30's? The Tigers had some really good pitching 34-36 and the Atletics
    had it in 30-31 but those Yankee names just jump out at you. Lefty
    Gomez was clearly the dominating pitcher of the decade. Hell, even
    Babe Ruth pithced a couple games for the Yankees in the 30's.
    
    Bottom line is that I don;t see how anyone coyuld possibly diminsih
    the accomplishments of the 1960's Celtics while at the same time
    extolling the greatness of the 30's Yankees. 
    
    Rich
     

    Rich, while I appreciate the time you put into this entry, and enjoyed
    running through the names again, I fail to see what it is you believe
    you have proven.  You have invented a straw man argument which you
    attribute to me, and countered it with a tautological argument of your
    own devising.
    
    I entered into this fray when the argument was solely between "then"
    and "now" in the NBA.  How can anyone look at Magic's 5 rings, Kareem's
    6 rings, Russell's 9 rings, Wilt's 2 rings and make persuasive
    arguments using those numbers?  They just don't work together, because
    the league has changed so much, the owners have changed so much and
    mostly the caliber of the players have changed so much.  In my mind,
    Magic's 5 rings in the decade of the '80s is at least equal to, and in
    all liklihood more impressive than Russell's already impressive
    accomplishments because of what the league has achieved in terms of
    parity.
    
    From there, you persisted by drawing the Yankees into it, only because
    I am a Yankee fan.  They had no business in there, as I had shown in
    another note.  The conditions of the time of the beginning of the
    Yankee dynasty (1921) in Major League baseball couldn't be any more
    different than the conditions of the time of the Celtics dynasty
    (1957?) in the NBA.  Professional Baseball was over 50 years
    established, and while there were many good and great teams before, a
    reasonable condition of competition existed before the Yankees took
    hold.  
    
    What's more the dynasties were of completely different magnitudes: the
    Yankee dynasty went from 1921 with their first pennant to 1964.  It was
    continued through the careers of a handful of great players - Ruth,
    Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantle.  The Celtics dynasty went from Russell's
    first year to his last.  
    
    To draw a more relavant comparison, if, in the next few years, some NBA
    team starts a 25 year period of winnng roughly two-thirds of the
    Conference Championships and half of the NBA Championships, then you
    will be more accurate in comparing it to the Yankee dynasty.
    
    Now perusing through your lists you draw this reasonable conclusion:
    
>when you look at the rosters of other
>teams it appears that there were some really great names but other teams
>were not nearly as strong as the Yankees.
    
    Nowhere have I said that the Yankees didn't build the best teams
    through periods of their dynasty (although there were years there where
    they overachieved).  In fact there probably never has been a dynasty
    which wasn't fueled by great players.  Thus, I have labeled your
    argument a tautology.  
    
    Dan

Gawd, Dan, I love it when ya use them there big words ;^)

I knew a girl who was tautology once (heh, heh, heh)

8^)

    >Lefty
    >Gomez was clearly the dominating pitcher of the decade. Hell, even
    >Babe Ruth pithced a couple games for the Yankees in the 30's.
    
    Don't tell that to anyone who has heard of Lefty Grove.
    
    And tell me, of what significance does the Ruth comment have?
    
    Dan

Dan, oh Dan the only reason that you can hold Magic's achievements up to
Russell's is because he wears that sissy ass purple and gold. You most
certainly have tried to convince us that the Yankees' dynasty is greater
than the Celtics all for naught. Look at the Celtics from 1957 to 1982
(25 years) and I count 14 championships out of 25 years 56% not quite
 66%. Did the Yankees win 66% of the championships in 25 years? I don't
 know and I don't have the stats to check it out either. 

mike  

    Tautology, huh? No, what I'm driving at, Dan, is the level of
    competition. Regardless of how long the NBA had been in existance
    or Major League Baseball, for that matter, the type of competition
    has a direct bearing on determining how great the champion was/is.
    
    In looking at the 50's/60's NBA you had some great players:
    
     Cincinnatti with Oscar and Jack Twyman.
     Syracuse with Dolph Schayes.
     St Louis with Cliff Hagen and Bob Petit.
     Philadelphia with Wilt, Walker, Greer
     Los Angeles with West, Baylor and Goodrich
    
    Then in the 60's you had the great Knick teams. I believe there
    was MORE parity in the NBA at the time of the Celtics' greatness
    than there was iin baseball during the Yankee golden years. Clearly
    the snapshot I painted of the 30's depicts this. Look at the rosters
    of the Red Sox, Indians, White Sox, Browns and Senators in the early
    30's and then check out the A's, White Sox, Browns and Senators
    in the late 30's. 50% of the American League was filled with some
    real nobodys.
    
    At least in the NBA during the Celtic years each team had at least
    one bona fide star. This cannot be said of the American League of
    the 30's.
    
    I'm not trying to taunt anyone, Dan. I'm just trying to bring out
    a point that any team that can dominate a sport for 10 years or
    so in a row is truly great. Your Yankees and my Celtics are both
    great in what they accomplished. Since the Yankees dominated far
    longer than the Celtics, their feat is perhaps the greatest of all
    sports but what the Celtics accomplished is, deservedly, the greatest
    feat, teamwise, in the history of the NBA.
    
    Rich
    

    Dan, you got me.....Lefty Grove was really something. I guess
    I got lost with  "Lefty". Here ya go:
    
     Year	Grove	 		Gomez
    		W-L   ERA       	W-L    ERA
    ================================================
    1930	28-5  2.54		2-5    5.56
    1931 	31-4  2.05		21-9   2.63
    1932  	25-10 2.84		24-7   4.21
    1933	24-8  3.21		16-10  3.18
    1934	    ?			26-5   2.33
    1935	20-12 2.70		12-15  3.18
    1936	17-12 2.81		13-7   4.38
    1937	17-9  3.02		21-11  2.33
    1938	14-4  3.07		18-12  3.35
    1939	15-4  2.54		12-8   3.41
    
    The comment about Babe Ruth pitching was just an observation, nothing
    more.
    
    Rich
    

    A little Yankee history:
    
    Pennants (33) World Series (22)
    
    1921
    1922
    1923	1923
    1926
    1927	1927
    1928	1928
    1932	1932
    1936	1936
    1937	1937
    1938	1938
    1939	1939
    1941	1941
    1942
    1943	1943
    1947	1947
    1949	1949
    1950	1950
    1951	1951
    1952	1952
    1953	1953
    1955
    1956	1956
    1957
    1958	1958
    1960
    1961	1961
    1962	1962
    1963
    1964
    1976
    1977	1977
    1978	1978
    1981
    
    If you consider the Yankee dynasty the time of their most regular
    World Series appearances, it spans the 40 year time period from
    1923 - 1962.  In that time, they won 25 American League pennants
    and 20 World Series.  You can probably tack on the pennants in 1921,
    1922, 1963 and 1964 - 44 years, 29 pennants and 20 World Series.
    Included in this were streaks such as the following:
    
    The only 5 straight World Series wins in history, 1949-1953
    
    Another streak of 5 straight AL pennants, 1960-1964
    
    The only other 4 straight World Series wins, 1936-1939 
    
    Another streak of 4 straight AL pennants, 1955-1958
    
    3 other streaks of 3 straight AL pennants:  1921-23, 1926-28 and
    1941-43.  There was also another 3 straight AL pennants in 1976-78
    which is outside the bounds of the dynasty.
    
    Consecutive WS wins in 1927-28, 1961-62 and again, outside the bounds
    of the dynasty, 1961-62.
    
    The most WS wins the Yankees ever had in any 25 year period was
    14/25.                         
    
    One of the reasons for the Yankees dominance isn't that they were
    so much better than the National League but because they were better
    than the American League as a whole.  The last real dynasty in the
    AL other than the Yankees was the Philadelphia Athletics of the
    late twenties and early thirties.  The Yankees did do a better job
    of signing young ballplayers and had a much more dominating farm
    system than any other team in the AL.  Late in the season, they
    were always able to pick up a veteran player for the pennant drive
    for young prospects because they had so many of them. 
    
    During the time of their greatest dominance, no one was able to
    surface for more than a season or two.  Because the Yankees were
    winning so much, many of the franchises were very marginal.  The
    Browns, Athletics and Senators all moved before the decade of the
    sixties began.  The Red Sox were fairly marginal until Tom Yawkey
    really got established.  The White Sox never really recovered from
    the 1919 scandal.  I don't know that much about the Indians.
    
    The National League's best franchises in the meantime were run by
    Branch Rickey, first at St Louis and then at Brooklyn.  The Pirates,
    Phillies and Braves were usually awful.  The Cubs were OK from time
    to time.  The Giants slipped badly after the mid-thirties.  The
    Reds were OK sometimes.
    
    The dominant teams were those with the best management (Cardinals,
    Dodgers) and a team which built on the premier gate attraction of
    its day (Babe Ruth) to build the strongest organization in baseball.
    
    The Yankees began to slip relative to the NL first and then to the
    rest of the AL because they were among the last to sign black ball
    players.  Also, ownership turmoil played a big part in what went
    on.  CBS' ownership of the Yankees was much worse than the Steinbrenner
    years because CBS owned them strictly as a tax write-off.
    
    There are a lot of parallels between the Celtics and the Yankees
    in this sense - the Celtics had the best coaching and management
    in Red Auerbach and he had the smarts to get the best player of
    his time in Bill Russell.  Russell played in the NBA before Chamberlain
    and after Wilt's graduation from Kansas in 1957, played with the
    Globetrotters for a couple of years before joining the NBA.  The
    biggest difference is that the Celtics were always marginally financed
    and had no stability in the ownership until Harry Mangurian in 1980
    or so.
    
    I'm not sure you can compare the achievements of the two franchises,
    they are both impressive in their own right.  The Yankees did it
    over a longer period of time, the Celtics won a higher percentage.
    Comparing the 5 for the Lakers in the 80s to what the Celtics did
    is also difficult.  Both teams had and have a dominant player, both had and
    have good management.  There are more players now spread over more
    teams, there were fewer good players then spread over fewer teams.
    Who can say for sure?  The Celtics lack of fan support is a complete
    non-issue.
    
    As a personal note, it really gets under my skin when anyone attempts
    to belittle the achievements of the Celtics from 1957 - 1969.  They
    are the team I grew up with, the team that first got me interested
    in sports, the team I followed with my Dad more so than any other.
    He took me to my first game when I was 7, had me watching and listening
    when I was 5.  It's tied up in a lot of emotional things for me
    which is why I get defensive about it.
    
    John

    >Geology or Zoology?
    
    More like tautological and didactic dialectisim, and a_immaterial 
    form at that.
    
    To wit: First he unnecessarily trots out a big word-as-weapon (perhaps 
    as a compensation mechanism for another weapon that's not so big?),
    and then he goes on to draw conclusions based on what was probably a
    mistaken useage in the first place without ever showing exackaly how
    it was so, puke of pukes, "tautological."   Then he insults our
    intelligence by comparing Tragic and that overrated baldhaided geek to
    the Great Green Empire that spanned a quarter century!
    
    Talk about form without substance.  
    
    MrT

    Ahhh....balmy weather, summer breezes, iced cocktails, and MrT's
    rebuttals to J Danforth's tirades...
    
    Summer is *here*!
    
    Mark.

    >Tautology, huh? No, what I'm driving at, Dan, is the level of
    >competition. Regardless of how long the NBA had been in existance
    >or Major League Baseball, for that matter, the type of competition
    >has a direct bearing on determining how great the champion was/is.
    
    Yes, a tautology.  Although I haven't made this argument, you have
    assumed that "a team that builds a dynasty based on great talent
    cheapens the dynasty" is part of my logic.  I counter that I have not
    made such an argument.  Further, you've declared the Yankee dynasty
    cheapened because they had great players.  There is the tautology,
    because having great players is a necesary part of being a dynasty. 
    There are no dynasties without great players!
        
    As for your "level of the competition" argument, you've made claims
    about players from 60 years ago, and asked your audience to make
    judgements on the basis of "having heard of the players".  Hardly
    scientific.  You haven't done the same with the Celtics.  I'm sure that 
    there are tons of players whom I haven't heard of from the NBA of the
    50s and 60s, yet you blur over that by saying that each team had at
    least one great player.  I can make the same claim about the AL teams
    of the 1930s which you listed, with at least the same degree of
    accuracy.  You've also limited my side by narrowing the scope severely 
    within the Yankee dynasty, while for your side you've taken a very
    broad view of when a player qualifies (for instance, Syracuse' great
    player was Dolph Schayes, while one of LA's was Gail Goodrich).
    
    A's - Foxx, Simmons, Cochrane, Grove
    Senators - Manush, Rice, Travis, Crowder
    Indians - Averill, Trosky, Keltner, Ferrell
    Tigers - Gehringer, Greenberg, York, Rowe
    Browns - Goslin, Bottomly, Schulte
    White Sox - Blue, Appling, Dykes, Lyons
    Red Sox - Cronin, Foxx, Doerr
    
    A part of your thesis is correct.  Some of these teams were never good
    enough to challenge the Yankees.  And when I process your lists to make
    the above, I realize that even though I can find some greats or at
    least great seasons on these lousy teams, it doesn't make the team
    competitive.  Just like in the NBA, where one great doesn't make that
    team competitive.  It cuts both ways. 
    
    But again, my argument was not centralized around this point, which
    you've delved into.  There was a lot more to the conditions that
    allowed these dynasties to flourish.  A lot more.  Which is what makes
    them so different.
    
    And now you've got MrT on your side, which doesn't say much for your
    argument, but does loads for the arguing.
    
    Dan

>Look at the Celtics from 1957 to 1982
>(25 years) and I count 14 championships out of 25 years 56% not quite
> 66%.
    
    Hey Mike, the Celtic dynasty ended the moment Russell retired, and not
    a second later.  By my estimation, they won 3 titles from 1970-1982,
    ~22%.  Admirable, but not dynastic.
    
    Dan

    Schneid, as a community we normally don't axe that you apologize for
    your wronghaidedness; it's just that this time your exacerbaited [sic]
    that condition with your mistaken big word usage-as-stylistic-flourish
    gaffe.
    
    Brake isn't being tautological, YOU are!
    
    Take your assumptions about his assumptions about how great players 
    relates to the inherent greatness of a dynasty.  You mistakenly 
    oversimplify by asserting that there is necessarily a linear
    relationship between the two (i.e., the more dynastic, the more the
    talent recognized).
    
    This ain't necessarily so, Shoeless Dan.  Fack is, it is possible for
    a dynasty to flourish in part cuz of great coaching, a_advanced style
    of play, or character independent of talent.  In these cases the 
    relationiship between dynastic status and talent level becomes non-
    linear.  I think that was the case with the Great Green Dynasty.  They
    had guys who played a different style that almost always seemed to be
    at a higher and more efficacious level than the rest. 
    
    How many Titles did they win over more talented teams?  [many]
    
    How many such Titles did the Gold Chain Gang win?  [not a damned one]
    
    Btw, I cain think of yet another Great Team that over the years has
    achieved this non-linearity of which Dan got caugh obfuscating behind
    his much used tattered cloak of egghaidedness.
    
    MrT 

 Stop it Dan your killing me :^).....

 Did you or did you not say that if a team over a 25 year period was to
 win 2/3 's of the league championships then you would consider them
 equal to the Yankees' dynasty? So from memory I show they have won
 56%. Then the MVP of notes John Hendry steps in to supply the stats
 on the yankees and lo and behold the best they've ever done is 56%
 also.

 Now I and every other Celtics' fan realizes that when Russell retired
 after winning yet another championship against the Lakers with the
 supposed "greatest player ever" Wilt the Jilt that the dynasty was over.
 Yet they did still win another 3 championships in the time frame that
 you specified so where's your beef? How many did the purple gang win?
 Given that some teams have never won a championship and the Celtics'
 two in the seventies was as many as anyone else won during those years
 then who else has the right to claim dynasty in the NBA other than us?
 Certainly not the Lakers who are 2-8 against us lifetime....

 mike

    Dan,
    
    If I gave the impression that the Yankee teams of the 30's should
    suffer in history's eye because of great talent, I apologize. That
    was not my intent. 
    
    Again, the reason I started this whole thing was in response to
    something you wrote in the NBA note about the Celtics' dynasty not
    being that significant because the talent wasn't as good as it is
    today. What I tried to do was use one of your favorite teams as
    an example of why I thought your argument was hollow. 
    
    Personally I recognize, with envious eyes, the great Yankee teams
    from 1921-1964. That is why I jump for glee when they lose today
    and why I chuckled last night when Rizzuto said "Well, the Yanks
    are in Milwaukee tonight so it's the Brewers turn to fatten up".
    The team you grew up with kicked the crap out of the team I grew
    up with. The team you grew up with had a foundation of Babe Ruth
    who came from the team I grew up with.
    
    Now the ghost of Phil Linz and Horace Clarke has returned to haunt.
    
    But enough. I maintain that the Celtics' feats during the Russell
    years was the greatest accomplishment to date in NBA history
    (notwithstanding Wilt's 100 point night).
    
    Rich
    

    O.k. O.k. wif all Dan's arguments, am I to understand dat the UCLA
    hoops teams of the mid 60s-mid 70s does not constitute a dynasty. Who
    gives a fly'in filbert about a 25 year span. In my book 7/8 titles in a
    10 year span constitutes a dynasty. Ergo the Celdicks and the Spankme's
    do qualify. 

    UCLA's run was a dynasty, sure.  
    
    But one cheapened by their total domination in the talent department
    (albeit in combination with fine coaching), and the way that they 
    maintained that talent level.
    
    In other words, the Celtics couldn't just go out and pluck players 
    from the creme de la creme by way of PR, sunny SoCal, and cold hard
    cash; they had to draft smarter and trade smarter and play smarter
    than the comp to do what they did.  The UCLAns didn't do these things.
    
    MrT

    re .20 
    
    So everyoone just rolled over for them?
    
    
    Schlep me

    
    And so, SPORTS fans, be sure to tune in to next week's feature
    argument, where Secretariate's career is compared and contrasted
    with that of Rocky Marciano.
    
    The Horse or The Rock?  Who's Better?
    
    Next on "This week in LDUC."
    
    

    I did make one mistake in .11.  They had two consecutive WS wins
    outside the boundaries of the dynasty, in 1977-78, not 1961-62 as
    I first noted.  The 1961-62 wins were within the bounds of the dynasty.
    
    "When Cheering for the Yankees was like Cheering for US Steel"
    
    John

    John, I think I detected a bit of T-hypocrisy (tm) in your note.  (.22)
    
    First you point out how UCLA consistently had an easy go of it come 
    tourney time, and then conclude that this doesn't "cheapen" their
    results.
    
    Of course it does!  Having a cake-walk to the Final 4 is obviously a
    huge advantage - one that would be unheard of by todays standards. 
    When comparing the NCAA tourney achievements of UCLA against todays 
    grueling "Road to (where ever)", this is obviously an important factor. 
    (Along with the oft-stated "talent monopoly" that they developed.)
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    >UCLA achievements lessened by objective analysis.
    
    Thank you.  But not exackally.  It'd go something more like this:
    "Tainted UCLA achievements wither under objective scrutiny."  Yes?
    
    And say what you will about Secretariat, but he was one helluva 
    lot prettier than Marciano.
    
    MrT
    
    

    Chris, I deleted .22 because I said something I didn't mean to say.
    Let me try again:
    
    UCLA's dynasty was accomplished during a time when the NCAA regions
    were determined solely based on geography, rather than by strength.
    The Western Region was the weakest of the 4 regions during that
    time, so they did have an easier path to the Final Four than teams
    from other regions.   
    
    Now, if you want to put me on trial for being a hypocrite, so be
    it.  I'm out of here for a week anyway.
    
    John

    >Put him on the stand!!
    
    Still reeling from your insanity conviction, eh Crisp?  I'd think
    you'd at least show enough class to not try and drag my ex-Veep 
    running mate into your pool of muck.
    
    Going back to relative dynasties, I say that some dynasties are 
    better than others, sorting the good from the bad and the just plain
    ugly based on these fine criteria:
    
    1. Level of competition at time
    2. Dynastic length
    3. Integrity
    4. Talent non-linearity
    5. "Great Moments" quotient
    6. Distinctive style of play
    7. Distinctive personalities
    
    MrT

	I can't agree with .28.  Back in the UCLA dynasty days, only
	one team from each conference made the tournament, and the 6-team
	or 7-team regionals were then filled with a few independents.

	The east region always had the Ivy League, Middle Atlantic, and
	Southern Conference champions, and until the laste 60's, the
	Yankee Conference champions also were invited automatically.
	The ACC champ and one excellent independent usually highlighted
	the region.

	The mideast regionals always had the Ohio Valley and Mid-American
	champions.  Typically, the toughest regional, as had the SEC and
	Big 10 as well as 2 usually good independents.

	The midwest regional had three conference champions, from the
	Big Eight, Southwest (always patsies in those days), and the
	Missouri Valley.  They also had 3 independents, although they
	weren't usually as good as those seeded further east (Oklahoma City
	was invited a few times, for instance).

	The west regional had the Pacific Eight champ, UCLA, as well as
	the PCAA, WCAC, WAC, and Big Sky champions, as well as one
	independent.  Often one of the other conference champions had a
	very good team.  For example, Long Beach State was ranked in top 3 one
	year and top 10 the next; Texas Western had excellent teams (and was
	the one team to interrupt the UCLA string); Santa Clara and USF were
	usually quite good, and the WAC teams (Arizona, ASU, UNM, BYU) would
	often field a good team.  There usually were fewer real patsies in
	the west regional than any of the other three regionals.

    >You mistakenly 
    >oversimplify by asserting that there is necessarily a linear
    >relationship between the two (i.e., the more dynastic, the more the
    >talent recognized).                              
    
    I never made any such assertion.  You have built a straw man to carry
    on the rest of your argument.
    
    >In these cases the 
    >relationiship between dynastic status and talent level becomes non-
    >linear. 
    
    Perhaps non-linear, but there has still never been a dynasty without
    great players.  Which is what I have asserted, despite your attempts to
    twist it.  That's how you make your re-introduction?  The same
    Bush-like tactics??
    
    >How many Titles did they [the Celtics of the Russell years] win over
    more talented teams?  [many] 
    
    Few if any.  I would say one.  1969.  Those Celtic teams easily had
    superior talent for most of those years of the dynasty.
    
    Dan
    
    

> Did you or did you not say that if a team over a 25 year period was to
> win 2/3 's of the league championships then you would consider them
> equal to the Yankees' dynasty?
    
    You missed a crucial piece of the formula.  I also said starting in a
    few years, i.e. when the league has had time to settle, when a form of
    parity has been achieved, when ownership is secure, when the influx of
    players and talent is great, etc.  Not just any 25-year period, but a
    period that occurs during the course of a mature league.
    
    Dan

 No Dan, I did not miss your point about in a few years' time because I
 figure it's hogwash. I don't see anything revelavant to this argument
 based on how old each league was. 

 mike 

    >Again, the reason I started this whole thing was in response to
    >something you wrote in the NBA note about the Celtics' dynasty not
    >being that significant because the talent wasn't as good as it is
    >today.
    
    But, Rich, I haven't said anything like "the Celtics' dynasty was not
    that significant".  I maintain that if a similar dynasty were achieved
    in today's NBA it would be much more significant in a variety of ways
    having to do with the maturity of the league.  That's my whole point.
    I don't know if you agree, but I would agree to the same tenet in
    baseball.
    
    >The team you grew up with kicked the crap out of the team I grew
    >up with.
    
    Unfortunately, not really.  The team I grew up with never won much but
    developed nicely into the mini-dynasty of 1976-1981.  Lotta frustration
    for a young Yankee fan in the early 70s.  
    
    Dan

    Dan, I will concede that if any team in baseball or basketball reeled
    off 10 straight championships today it would be more impressive
    than what the Celtics and Yankees achieved.
    
    BTW - I grew up in the 50's. In my first game at Fenway, Mickey
    was playing center and Hank Baur was in right. I remember Luis Arroyo
    being Whitey Ford's personal reliever, I remember Hector Lopez and
    Andy Carey and Gil McDougald and Ralph Terry. I recall how the Yankees
    used the Kansas City Athletics as a farm team. I watched as the
    Red Sox fruitlessly trotted out the likes of Willard Nixon, Frank
    Sullivan, Ike Delock and Mike Fornelies to thwart the mighty Yankees.
    I remember with glee the day that Bill Monboquette became known
    at the "Yankee Killer" because he won 2 games in a season against
    the Yankees.
    
    Year after year, series after series. Interrupted only in '54 by
    the Indians and '59 by the White Sox, those Yankees were unstppable
    and unlovable outside of Gotham. Gets kinda sickening, ya know?
    But, then, that made rooting for the Milwaukee Braves, Pittsburg
    Pirates, Cincinnatti Reds and Brooklyn Dodgers so much fun when
    World Series time came around. Guys like Adcock, Spahn, Groat, Pinson,
    Koufax et al became heros of mine in the hopes that they could dent
    the Yankee armour.
    
    Rich
    

>    Still reeling from your insanity conviction, eh Crisp?  I'd think
>    you'd at least show enough class to not try and drag my ex-Veep 
>    running mate into your pool of muck.
 
	The last I checked there wasn't a single darn entry in 
	"The Trial" note made by anyone goin' by *your* username.

	Surprised you'd bring up a non-historical event like that T,  
	although this *does* correspond to your Orwellian approach 
	to journalism.


	HAW HAW HAW!!!!1111


- ACC Chris   

    to Rick Brake,
    
    Way back you said "the Great Knicks teams of the 60's".  Rich, I
    grew up a Knick fan and the Knicks sipped for most of the 60's.
     Only at the end of the decade, with the acquisition of Dave
    DeBusschere, and the drafting and maturity of Willis Reed and Walt
    Frazier, did the Knicks grow into a champeenship team, culminating
    with their victory in the 69-70 season.  To say "the Great Knicks
    teams of the 60's" is like saying the "Great Mets Teams of the 60's
    because they won a WS in 1969..."
    
    My two cents are that the Canadiens, Yankees and Celtics have all
    been dynasties, but IMO, hoop in the late 50's through the 60's
    was not that big a sport in the USA - college hoop was much bigger
    than the NBA.   Comparing decades is really a rathole arguement.
    IMO, athletes of today are far superior than their counterparts
    of earlier years.  A larger population base, better training methods,
    better equipment, etc., have aided in the increase of athlete's
    capabilities.  The NBA had some name players in the 50 and 60's,
    some real grets, George Mikan, the first of the dominating centers,
    the big O, the Celtics team, etc., but overall, the talent level
    was far and away below what we have now.  To suggest otherwise is
    to be totally blind to advancements in talent.  
    
    IN baseball, some of the advancements in talent have been softened
    by the advent of night games, with poorer vision, symetrical parks,
    longer schedules, longer season, different baseballs and rules.
    Still, the talent level has, IMO, gone up steadily.  
    
    In most sports, it has been harder for an individual to dominate
    like in the old day.  Why?  IMO, because the talent level is greater,
    making it harder for anyone player to dominate the game.
    
    JD

    OK, JD, let's say "those great Kincks teams of the late 60's and
    early 70's". To me, the Celtic/Knick rivalry of that era was the
    best of any series ever in the NBA. Debuschere and Havlicek, Cowens
    and Reed, Sanders trying to defend Bradley, Jo Jo White versus the
    Pearl......Great intensity both on and off the court. 
    
    Although the Celtics had great rivalries with Philly and LA, I can't
    ever recall more intensity than existed between NY and Boston.
    
    Rich
    

    	Rich I think you've got your time periods mixed up.  The 1968-69
    Knicks played the Celtics in the Eastern Finals and lost in 6 games.
    After that year it wasn't until 1972 that you could call the games
    a rivalry.  The first two years after Russell retired the Celtics
    stunk!  Well the 1971 team won more games than they lost, but a
    great team they weren't.  The Philly rivalry may not have lasted
    that long 65-68, but it was pretty intense.  Whenever the two teams
    played during the regular season it was like a playoff game.
    
    	When talking about tough teams of the 60's most people forget
    the Cincinnati Royals.  They had Robertson, Lucas and Wayne Embry
    (who later played for Boston).  After Cousy retired most of the
    scribes had the Royals winning the championship on paper, but they
    didn't do it on the court.  A big loss for this team was Maurice
    Stokes.  He had a great rookie year, then was paralyzed after hitting
    his head on the backboard.  He could've been a great one.
    
    				/Don

    Yeah, /Don, I guess I do. But you have to admit, those Knicks/Celtics
    games were somethin' else. If memory serves me right (which it hasn't
    lately) the Bruins/Rangers had a damned good rivalry going at the
    same time.
    
    Rich
     

    	Absolutely Rich.  Back then tickets were easy to come by, and
    every October I would get tickets for every Knick game.  Sometimes
    they would play 8 games (4 at home) and that was one of the very
    few "tough tickets".  But if you got them early enough you could
    sit in the lodge or right in the middle of the first balcony.  Back
    then the highest priced ticket was $6 or $7.  Never see those kind
    of bargains again.
    
    				/Don

    Hey Slasher, you trying to cover your tracks eh ?
    
    You're a wagon jumper - just like the rest of the Jihad ....

    Nah, Doc, contrary to what many of you may think, there WERE Celtic
    fans prior to the Larry Bird years. Yup, honest to goodness. And,
    yup, some of actually went to the Garden to see them. And, yesserree,
    most of us still are Celtic fans.
    
    /Don and Rich - Lifetime Celtic Fans

       Me too /Don!!
                                    Denny

    Sure you are DennyVane ..... suuuure you are ......

    BTW, I'm (tm)ing :
    
    1. (tm)ing 
    
    And 
    
    2. DennyVane 

    Hey, don't leave me out!
    
    Even though I was being reared in Mecca at the time, I too was (and
    still am) very much a Boston Celtics fan.  This is a team with class,
    with tradition, with Titles, with men of good character, with
    innovation that changed and, yes, advanced the game and made the sport
    better for us all.  
    
    It's high time a little Respect is paid in here for what probably is
    the best damned pro franchise in the History of Main.
    
    Big11 Tom
            

    And besides that, everybody loves a gracious winner.
    
    MrT

    Wail, at least he senses that the Lakers' so-called dynasty is
    of the historical sort now.
    
    MrT

>    It's high time a little Respect is paid in here for what probably is
>    the best damned pro franchise in the History of Main.


	Probably the second greatest, the first is the Candiens.

Mc            

    re: Knicks-Celts rivalry in the late '60s/early '70s
    
    As a Knicks fans, growing up in lovely downtown Poughkeepsie during
    those years, the Knicks' only true rival were the Baltimore Bullets.
    Unseld, Riordan, and Earl the Pearl, especially Earl the Pearl, gave
    the Knicks many a fit.
    
    I believe that the Celts main rival was still Philly.......
    
    H�wk

re:-1

As a Bullet fan of the 60/70's.  I agree, for some reason the Bullets and
Knicks matched up extremly even during those years.  Many, many playoff games
were decided by the "last shot".

				Bob 

    	H�wk, from 1972-74 just about every Celtic/Knick game was an
    ABC game of the week.
    
    				/Don

    Hawk, as I recall, when the Celts and Knicks played at MSG, the
    national anthem wasn't even heard because the crowd was so excited
    about what was coming up.
    
    Those were the days when Rudy T was the only guy picked for the
    All Star team from Philly and the Bullets/Knicks/Celtics had some
    great games.
    
    How we Celtic fans lamented the Bullet announcer yelling
    SPPOOOOOOOOON!!!
    
    Rich